XMPP also has this but some chat solutions are not as widely available. Of course this is possible because of Google being the hub with is the grandparent's concern Hangouts provides a pretty smooth experience and is my generally preferred way to initiate a video call with my family who runs a variety of platforms (Andriod, iOS, Windows, macOS, etc) I have friends/family using Hangouts and Signal messenger. I've setup an XMPP server before and it wasn't that hard. Works on Linux, Windows, macOS, Android and IOS with the standard clients Single chat history that's synchronized Integration with Google Voice means you can add phone users to your video call Using GCM means that battery life is better than with long polling, in my experience All users support the same call/video features With hangouts, if someone has a google account, there isn't much else to setup which makes things much easier for non-technical friends & family. It still requires you to setup an XMPP server and proper DNS for federation. If nothing else exists, then maybe the reason the capability exists at this point in the first place is because of those developer choices, in which case it's hard to fault them. It's up to the users to choose to use the program, and if they find the drawbacks of the developer's choices to be not worth it, then they can choose something else (if it exists). Similarly, saying to use Java instead of Python opens you up to those same considerations.Īll that's really just a long way of saying, maybe the developer decided that using this system accelerated their development enough that it was worth it. Perhaps it was specifically to avoid some pitfalls in C++, or because it was perceived as easier to work in. Saying use C++ instead of Java opens you up to thinking about the choice the developer made in using Java. Pointing out the alternative forces you to think about it more critically. Complaining about a program being written in Java because it's bloated and used too much memory isn't useful in itself, if there are no better alternatives with respect to those complaints. It's the same argument as writing a program in a dynamic language, in Java, or in C/C++ (or any other bare-metal low resource implementation, such as Rust). Sure, but presumably the technology was chosen because there were trade-offs and the developers found it worth while. I remember how much of a fight it was to write text that went vertical to label a graph in business basic. Yeah, other UI libraries can handle most of this just fine as well, but the browser is the one platform that i've been impressed at just how well it handles typography in general. Many developers seem to think that "display text on a screen" is easy, it's not.īrowsers can handle multiple fonts, multiple sizes, and crazy positioning.īrowsers can handle tons of different encodings (including stuff like UTF8 which can be a real pain to safely and correctly parse).īrowsers can display just about every single glyph on the planet without a sweat.īrowsers can handle right-to-left text right alongside left-to-right text (even switching in the same sentence!).īrowsers have a simple way to apply multiple fallback fonts (just in case your font of choice doesn't have the unicode 'HEXAGRAM FOR DIFFICULTY AT THE BEGINNING', it can fallback to a font that does).īrowser can apply simple CSS transformations to rotate text (even in 3D!) in a pretty performant way.īrowsers handle all of this, without the developer needing to spend more than 5 minutes even thinking about it, and it does so looking great. This is something that continually amazes me. >its only job is to display text nicely with formatting, browsers are pretty good at
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |